On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 20:51:47 -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 03:30:54 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi David.
> > IMHO this is not a good idea, because:
> >
> > 1. It introduces multiple places where the flag is reset. If new
> >test_expect_* functions are
Hi David.
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 20:11:54 -0300, david at tethera.net wrote:
> From: David Bremner
>
> Commit 4cc6727 introduced the library function
> test_subtest_known_broken which sets a variable
> test_subtest_known_broken_ . Unfortunately this variable is not reset
> if test_begin_subtest is
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 03:30:54 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin wrote:
> Hi David.
> IMHO this is not a good idea, because:
>
> 1. It introduces multiple places where the flag is reset. If new
>test_expect_* functions are added in the future, there would be more
>of these. So it brings us more
From: David Bremner
Commit 4cc6727 introduced the library function
test_subtest_known_broken which sets a variable
test_subtest_known_broken_ . Unfortunately this variable is not reset
if test_begin_subtest is not called before the next
test_expect_success or
From: David Bremner brem...@debian.org
Commit 4cc6727 introduced the library function
test_subtest_known_broken which sets a variable
test_subtest_known_broken_ . Unfortunately this variable is not reset
if test_begin_subtest is not called before the next
test_expect_success or
Hi David.
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 20:11:54 -0300, da...@tethera.net wrote:
From: David Bremner brem...@debian.org
Commit 4cc6727 introduced the library function
test_subtest_known_broken which sets a variable
test_subtest_known_broken_ . Unfortunately this variable is not reset
if
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 03:30:54 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin
dmitry.kuroch...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi David.
IMHO this is not a good idea, because:
1. It introduces multiple places where the flag is reset. If new
test_expect_* functions are added in the future, there would be more
of these. So